3 ms·
On the other hand this is from an Amazon marketing event and they are probably combining hindsight with colored glasses. Ultimately you can always diagnose fai
by zurn 11y ago
On the other hand this is from an Amazon marketing event and they are probably combining hindsight with colored glasses.
Ultimately you can always diagnose failures as "they didn't know what they were doing". But usually there are more nuanced explanations for wrong directions. For example it might be that OpenStack seemed to be heading in a better direction in 2012. Maybe it was reasoned that it's worth it to hedge against AWS lock-in and you can always easily fall back to Amazon, or even mix and match AWS and OpenStack. Etc.
If OpenStack worked well I don't see any inherent reason why you'd have to be bigger than Guardian to use it for autoscaling and load balancing.
- vidarh 11y agoHedging against AWS, I would understand. Building out your own virtualised setup I would understand. Even making use of portions of OpenStack. My issue with their description is that they seems to have tried to essentially emulate what is a very complex platform with the help of OpenStack, which is a very complex platform in a situation where they almost certainly didn't actually need more than a fraction of the functionality. > If OpenStack worked well I don't see any inherent reason why you'd have to be bigger than Guardian to use it for autoscaling and load balancing. On the other hand, if that was all they were using it for, OpenStack is massive overkill and there were plenty of simpler options.